ILNews

COA rules on coal bed gas dispute

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In settling a dispute between two Illinois companies regarding who has the legal right to recover coal bed methane gas, the Indiana Court of Appeals made its decision based on public safety and ruled in favor of the company assigned the coal bed gas lease.

The issue in Cimmaron Oil Corp. v. Howard Energy Corp., No. 26A01-0902-CV-67, is whether a 1976 lease that Cimmaron's predecessor obtained for the right to drill for and produce oil and gas includes the exclusive right to drill for and produce coal bed methane gas (CBM).

The Hardimans own the real property in Gibson County at question in the suit. In addition to the 1976 lease Cimmaron has, the Hardimans granted a coal bed gas lease to Howard Energy in 2001. In 2003, Howard Energy filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Cimmaron and the Hardimans. Howard Energy argues the Cimmaron lease covers only the oil and gas estate and includes only the conventional natural gas emanating from the coal, while its lease holds the right to extract the coal bed methane.

The trial court issued declaratory judgment in favor of Howard Energy, adopting the "eastern rule" that CBM is part of the coal estate, and no interest in CBM passed by reason of the 1976 oil and gas lease. The trial judge also discussed public safety and how giving away control of the CBM from the coal mine operator wouldn't serve public interest.

Because the concept of producing CBM for commercial gain wasn't possible in 1976, it's up to the courts to determine whether that lease somehow permits it.

The Court of Appeals used rulings from other jurisdictions on the presumed or surmised intent in the grant of oil and gas leases pre-dating current technology. Some courts have considered CBM as part of the coal bed estate, as part of the oil and gas estate, or a distinct mineral estate.

The trial court in the instant case followed the "eastern rule" that CBM is a component of coal and CBM production and coal mining are best left in the control of a single entity, wrote Judge L. Mark Bailey. Cimmaron would rather the court adopt the "western rule," which says the holder of a broadly defined gas and oil estate may have rights to CBM, which is a form of gas.

The gas estate owner wasn't granted permission in the lease to invade the coal seam, which would be necessary to produce the CBM. In fact, the CBM would be from virgin coal seams and would require fracturing the seam with high pressure.

"The Hardimans did not explicitly agree to Cimarron's invasion of the coal bed in this manner; it is not reasonable to presume that the intent was to permit invasion of a valuable land asset, the coal bed, should a means of making profits arise in the future," wrote the judge.

The appellate court declined to adopt either rule, but agreed with the trial court that public policy would militate toward considering CBM to be part of the coal bed.

"Public safety would be disserved by pitting the miner who needs to dissipate CBM to prevent explosions against the gas estate owner whose financial resource is being depleted," wrote Judge Bailey. "Nevertheless, it is within the province of the Legislature, to which we defer, to make policy decisions."

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT